BOS4c.002 Evaluation of a complex advance care planning intervention in the general practice setting (ACP-GP): cluster-randomized controlled trial

Julie Stevens, Rose Miranda, P. Pype, K. Eecloo, L. Deliens, Aline De Vleminck, K. Pardon
{"title":"BOS4c.002 Evaluation of a complex advance care planning intervention in the general practice setting (ACP-GP): cluster-randomized controlled trial","authors":"Julie Stevens, Rose Miranda, P. Pype, K. Eecloo, L. Deliens, Aline De Vleminck, K. Pardon","doi":"10.1136/spcare-2023-acp.30","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) is an iterative communication process about patients' values and preferences for future care. The general practice setting can provide opportunities for ACP, but deficits remain in its initiation due to barriers at the patient, general practitioner (GP), or health care system level. A complex intervention may be necessary to reduce barriers. We aimed to evaluate the effects of a complex ACP intervention for patients with chronic, life-limiting illness in general practice (ACP-GP).MethodCluster-randomized controlled trial with randomization at the GP level. The intervention consists of a patient workbook, GP training, ACP conversations, and a documentation template. Outcomes were the 15-item ACP Engagement Survey for patients and the ACP Self-Efficacy Scale for GPs. Linear mixed models evaluated differences at 3 months (T1, effectiveness evaluation) and 6 months (T2) post-baseline. Analysis was per intention-to-treat.Results35 GPs and 95 patients were randomized. Patient ACP engagement did not differ between the intervention and control group at T1 (baseline-adjusted mean difference, 0.34;95% CI, -0.02 to 0.69;p=0.062) or T2 (baseline-adjusted mean difference, 0.20;95% CI, -0.17 to 0.57;p = 0.28). for GP ACP self-efficacy, there were no significant differences between groups at T1 (baseline-adjusted mean difference, 0.16;95% CI, -0.04 to 0.35;p = 0.11) or at T2 (baseline-adjusted mean difference, 0.11;95% CI, -0.09 to 0.31;p = 0.27).ConclusionACP-GP did not improve patient engagement and GP self-efficacy more than usual care. Both groups showed patterns of increase from baseline. Trial procedures and the COVID-19 pandemic that coincided with the trial may have increased awareness about ACP, which may have also stimulated the control group to conduct more ACP than expected. It may be necessary to also look further at what patients and surrogate decision makers want and need from the ACP process.","PeriodicalId":19692,"journal":{"name":"Oral abstracts","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral abstracts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/spcare-2023-acp.30","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) is an iterative communication process about patients' values and preferences for future care. The general practice setting can provide opportunities for ACP, but deficits remain in its initiation due to barriers at the patient, general practitioner (GP), or health care system level. A complex intervention may be necessary to reduce barriers. We aimed to evaluate the effects of a complex ACP intervention for patients with chronic, life-limiting illness in general practice (ACP-GP).MethodCluster-randomized controlled trial with randomization at the GP level. The intervention consists of a patient workbook, GP training, ACP conversations, and a documentation template. Outcomes were the 15-item ACP Engagement Survey for patients and the ACP Self-Efficacy Scale for GPs. Linear mixed models evaluated differences at 3 months (T1, effectiveness evaluation) and 6 months (T2) post-baseline. Analysis was per intention-to-treat.Results35 GPs and 95 patients were randomized. Patient ACP engagement did not differ between the intervention and control group at T1 (baseline-adjusted mean difference, 0.34;95% CI, -0.02 to 0.69;p=0.062) or T2 (baseline-adjusted mean difference, 0.20;95% CI, -0.17 to 0.57;p = 0.28). for GP ACP self-efficacy, there were no significant differences between groups at T1 (baseline-adjusted mean difference, 0.16;95% CI, -0.04 to 0.35;p = 0.11) or at T2 (baseline-adjusted mean difference, 0.11;95% CI, -0.09 to 0.31;p = 0.27).ConclusionACP-GP did not improve patient engagement and GP self-efficacy more than usual care. Both groups showed patterns of increase from baseline. Trial procedures and the COVID-19 pandemic that coincided with the trial may have increased awareness about ACP, which may have also stimulated the control group to conduct more ACP than expected. It may be necessary to also look further at what patients and surrogate decision makers want and need from the ACP process.
BOS4c。综合医疗环境中复杂的预先护理计划干预的评价(ACP-GP):集群随机对照试验
预先护理计划(ACP)是一个关于患者对未来护理的价值观和偏好的迭代沟通过程。全科医生的环境可以为ACP提供机会,但由于患者、全科医生(GP)或卫生保健系统层面的障碍,ACP的启动仍然存在缺陷。可能需要复杂的干预措施来减少障碍。我们的目的是评估一种复杂的ACP干预对慢性、限制性生命疾病(ACP- gp)的影响。方法在GP水平上随机分组进行集群随机对照试验。干预包括患者工作簿、全科医生培训、ACP对话和文档模板。结果为患者的ACP参与调查和全科医生的ACP自我效能量表。线性混合模型评估基线后3个月(T1,有效性评估)和6个月(T2)的差异。按照意向治疗进行分析。结果随机抽取35名全科医生和95名患者。干预组与对照组患者ACP参与度在T1(基线校正平均差值为0.34;95% CI为-0.02 ~ 0.69;p=0.062)或T2(基线校正平均差值为0.20;95% CI为-0.17 ~ 0.57;p = 0.28)时无差异。在GP ACP自我效能方面,两组在T1(基线调整后的平均差值为0.16,95% CI为-0.04至0.35,p = 0.11)和T2(基线调整后的平均差值为0.11,95% CI为-0.09至0.31,p = 0.27)时无显著差异。结论与常规护理相比,acp -GP并没有提高患者的敬业度和自我效能感。两组都显示出从基线开始增加的模式。试验程序和与试验同时发生的COVID-19大流行可能提高了对ACP的认识,这也可能刺激对照组进行比预期更多的ACP。可能有必要进一步研究患者和替代决策者想要和需要从ACP过程中得到什么。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信